I still do not know why there are a few homophobia take the grant of the Bible to cheat on on themselves and pretended to be the sage and try to howl out the so-called awaking truth. All we have seen is on the bright side of gay rights in spite of the route of development is in nature tortuous, please lay down your hubris and be modest, there is no man was granted by god to judge a person who was born this way, and no matter who you are, you and I have to share the breath sunshine, all we need to do is wait for happiness.

I don't buy this argument for a minute. John Kerry wasn't secretary of state in 2011. Now that he is, he won't be going around expressing his personal opinion about the foreign or domestic policy of the United States, he simply executes that policy in the form of diplomacy. As a senator he came around, like most Democrats in the past few years. In Clinton's case, it wasn't her job to usurp the president in that regard, and he only last year came out in favor of equal marriage. In the meantime, she did give a speech to the UN championing equality of gays and lesbians the world over. If she's farcically late, then so is Obama, Biden, and even John Kerry. I mean 2011? His home state Massachusetts extended marriage rights to gays in 2004!

I'm somewhat offended by that last paragraph. Does the author of this piece not know that Iowa was only the third state in the union to legalize gay marriage? If someone were in Iowa, embroidering biblical samplers, they would have known about the gay marriage issue quite early on, more so than those in the UK, apparently.

General acceptance is not and cannot be a measure of what is right. A few decades ago cigarette smoking was hip and was glamorized. Now the likes of Phillip Morris are hounded for misleading people. Maybe, soon enough we'll remember,politicians are expected to lead not follow the crowd. Let's hope there is a leader among our politicians with the spine to stand for what is right.

History teaches us about the fate of Prophet Lute. God stonned them to death because they were homosexual. America is going to repeat the same crime and will meet the same fate. The Americans don't repeat the historical crime of homosexuality, otherwise you will be stoned to death by Allah the all Mighty.

This article is absolutely misinformed and makes me embarrassed to be a reader of The Economist. It fails to mention any of the LGBT-focused work of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) - which forms part of the State Department and reported directly to Hillary Clinton - abroad over the past four years. Thanks to Hillary Clinton's leadership, USAID has undergone a radical shift to enhance the political, social and economic development of LGBT people, to ensure that the LGBT community is part of overseas development, and to promote social and legal equality for LGBT people. Take the Global Development Partnership Initiative as an example, which ensures that USAID funding will reach more organizations in developing countries that promote the rights and protect the lives of LGBT people. This never existed before Hillary was Secretary of State!

And what about the landmark speech Hillary made at the Human Rights Commission in Geneva, marking Human Rights Day in 2011, where she affirmed that any definition of human rights must include sexual orientation and gender identity and that the United States committed itself to defending the human rights of LGBT people. In her speech, Hillary Clinton stated, “Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality. And protecting the human rights of all people, gay or straight, is not something that only Western governments do.”

Had the author of this article bothered to keep up with the shifting patterns in the United States' approach to development abroad and Hillary Clinton's leadership in changing and setting the course of the USA's development agenda, this article never would have been written. Hillary Clinton's shift from international protection of LGBT people to domestic is logical, welcome, and admirable, regardless of whether or not she runs for the presidency in 2016.

I am sure the 70,000 plus people who have died in Syria are really thankful for Hillary's work on LGBT issues. I guess the actual human right issue of being alive is just not that important.

I am aware that many cultures are still not protecting the rights of homosexuals, but that rings true for women as well in many countries. But we are told by the progressives that we should accept cultures such as Islam and not try to "westernize" them. But it is okay to expect them to change on LGBT issues - anybody else see the hypocrisy here?

Walter Mondale in grand dame drag. I like how, nearly half a minute into it, she finally remembers to smile. Too bad that for most of the speech her smile looks forced, and she appears less than comfortable. Should have taken a few more rehearsals. Lots of work to do before 2016.

It really isn't wise to slam people who come to agree with you, bad politics, bad diplomacy, and generally makes enemies of friends. If just chronically expressing anger about your position is your aim, it has well been accomplished.

Don't forget that it was her husband, Bill Clinton, who initially defined the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman and signed it into law as President. It was also VERY specific in the bill he signed that domestic partnerships and anyone else not fitting this legal definition of marriage would not be eligible for spouse benefits of any kind. Hillary also claims to be an environmentalist; ask the people in Arkansas what her and Tyson Chicken did to the lakes and rivers there. The Clinton's also pretended to be avid supporters of women's rights and America's working poor during the last campaign, but their tenure with Wal-Mart would suggest a very different story. I could go on and on. Long story short, beware of wolves dressed in sheep's clothing.

Approval or acceptance of gay marriage is the sign of decadence of Western society. Who knows, one day those who want to marry animals will be bold enough to campaign for their rights to couple. 'Low down dirty shame'.

I've heard that particular argument time and time again and it makes less sense everytime I hear it.

If you want to run up that polygamy could be justified I would agree with you. But then, the Bible and Koran also advocate that, so religious folks are on thin ice on that issue.

Two consenting adults cannot be equated to an animal (who cannot consent). Likewise, pedophelia would not be allowed because it still does not involve 2 consulting adults (unlike a certain 14 year-old Jewish girl of 2000 years ago).

Even if the Bible adheres to it, you know it's a matter of time before someone says polygamy is ok as long as it's between consenting adults. Same thing between siblings. Why does all this make less sense? you know it's the probably the next frontier once the gay barrier is broken.
Also let's remember this: marriage is a privilege granted by a state or a church not a right, if not, then why do we need a license to get married? And why do people under 18 need a permit from their guardians if it's such a right?

Homosexuality is abominable. Period. That they have constituted themselves to make so much noise does not change that. It is decadence, consent or not. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron and unnatural. You can intellectualize all you want.

This is so poor, brainless! The writer is just using information to get to his own point.
Pathetic!
En France, on dit "à charge". Le propre des médiocres.
I'm very surprised The Economist gives way to such craps.

Bravo TE. Once again we see that no matter how cynical, dishonest and calculating a politician is, they will gain support by appealing to small groups of special interest voters.
I honestly could care less about gay marriage one way or the other. The number of Americans effected by this issue is so small but one would think it was the defining issue of our time. And there is no way it should be compared to the civil rights movement. I have read many surveys that conclude that gay people are better educated and earn more than the average population. That hardly compares with people being forced to sit at the back of a bus or being forced to drink from a "colored" water fountain.
I am much more concerned with Mrs. Clinton's failures and negligence on Benghazi then whether or not she needs to polish up her liberal bona fides.

It's import lies in the fact that it is an effective way for doctrinal secularists to attack their enemies. By allowing them to portray those opposed to that particular paraphilia as bigots, zealots and close-minded, it gives them substantial ammunition in the culture wars.

I long for the day when there are no "culture wars". We have to get to the point where it is not acceptable to demonize people because they have personal beliefs that do not fit within the current popular culture.

I find it very interesting that most polling of African Americans finds that they are opposed to gay marriage by a clear majority. And yet that is hardly ever discussed while those whose religious beliefs preclude belief in gay marriage are routinely skewered.

I say this as one of your "secularists", so please do not put all of us in that basket.

Clinton isn't coming late to the party, she's coming late to admitting she's been at the party the whole time. She's an educated liberal female and she's not THAT old. I would be shocked if she weren't truly in favor of gay marriage most of her life, she's too smart not to have been. I think that rather than making her look like she's incincere now, it makes her look like she's been insincere for her entire political career up to this point and has been pandering to socially conservative democrats.

"The 'Institution of Marriage' is a personal commitment between consenting partners only and the Primary Fundamental Right does not recognize any restrictions relating to the sex of the partners, age of partners or amount of partners. Divorcing a partner or partners should be a simple proceeding initiated by either partner at any time unless a contract is signed by the parties involved that stipulates otherwise. No government agency need be involved at any time for any reason."http://www.primaryfundamentalright.org/index.php?pageName=pfrWhatIs